Is Your Tolerance a Clayton’s Tolerance Or Is It The Real Thing?

Remember Claytons? Remember the drink you have when you’re not having a drink? The non-alcoholic beer? Thought not. It was a Dud. Not even a Duff. It was big in the late 70s, early 80s, before it ran out of fizz.

If you’re of a certain vintage in Oz you would well remember calling something a “Claytons” version of something else, a less than satisfactory or fake replacement. And when it came to the non-alcoholic drinks Claytons was more of a Sham-dy than a Shandy. Ditch the Clayton’s and keep the Ginger Ale I say.

Mmm that tasty taste of Claytons

Anyway, apparently, the next wave of social engineering in our education systems is hitting our shores with a concerted effort to target what it calls “sham” tolerance.

What is “sham” tolerance? Well it’s a kind of Clayton’s tolerance towards homophobia that says all the right things, isn’t violent or aggressive, but hides behind conservative and so called “traditionalist” values whilst pretending to be loving towards the person. That’s what it is.

Nope, I’m not making up this stuff.

A report in The Australian newspaper today states:

Educators are being urged to look out for a new form of “modern homo­phobia” — characterised by disinterest, disingenuous support or “sham tolerance” — as part of efforts to promote sexual diversity education in schools.

A global group that includes Safe Schools Coalition advocate Roz Ward, warns that in countries such as Australia it “is more common to encounter “modern homo­phobia” than “traditional homophobia”. And here we were thinking that to disagree with the progressive agenda on matters of sexuality we were all just being museum pieces. Not at all, we’re thoroughly modern.

So what does a thoroughly modern homophobic look like? Well the new guide is most helpful here:

“Modern homophobia and transphobia are more difficult to deal with than traditional homophobia and transphobia and peer educators need to be trained on this.”

By the way, that sounds like it’s going to need a whole government department to up-skill on thought crime just to figure this one out. They’re going to need some money to deal with it, or with us, as the case may be.

But as The Oz report shows the guide is most helpful in sketching out what it all means:

The guide, which coins a new acronym to describe its target group: DESPOGI, or Disadvantaged because of their Expression of Sexual Preference or Gendered Identity, cautions activists to be aware of “laggards”, defined as “conservative actors whose main aim is to protest or block government action” as well as “traditionalists” who try to ensure that schools safeguard conservative values and limit knowledge of liberal values.

Hey laggards, leave them kids alone!

So laggards, your days are numbered. Conservative actors you’d better get off the stage. If you think there’s going to be much wiggle room left by the time they sliced and diced and dissected absolutely every part of public discourse on this one, you’re being hopelessly naive.

And just who might these laggards and conservative actors be? Do we even need to ask. This is clearly the next step in shutting down a considered traditional Christian response to the new sexual ethics. You’d be naive to think otherwise. Clearly this is aimed to paint anyone into a corner who attempts to affirm a person’s dignity, value and worth, but still disagree with them on sexuality matters. So pastors, keep your podcast sermons on a short leash.

So loving affirmations of people with whom you hold a different opinion/practice on homosexual matters is homophobia, although the good news is at least it’s “modern” homophobia, so you’ll still be allowed to drink coffee, dress like a hipster and listen to minor bands that very few people have heard of.

You just won’t be permitted to protest your innocence in matters to do with homophobia, because they’ll always be one step ahead of you. Always. They’ve got the time, money, zeal and increasing political and legal capital to do it.

One things for sure, we’re headed for a society committed to Clayton’s tolerance. You know, the tolerance we will have when we’re not actually having tolerance.

I agree totally. And love doesn’t mean agreeing with your enemies. That we have “enemies” is a given by Jesus. Tolerance is a way to push enmity subterranean where it is never fully dealt with. But the ability to strongly disagree with someone and still be able to say that you love them is a uniquely Christian thing. Anything else – such as tolerance – is a parody and is all that is left to the secular framework that cannot cope with true difference.